Proton-pump inhibitor use amongst patients with severe hypomagnesemia.

Introduction: Long-term proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use has been associated with hypomagnesemia. It is unknown how frequently PPI use is implicated in patients with severe hypomagnesemia, and its clinical course or risk factors. Methods: All patients with severe hypomagnesemia from 2013 to 2016 in a tertiary center were assessed for likelihood of PPI-related hypomagnesemia using Naranjo algorithm, and we described the clinical course. The clinical characteristics of each case of PPI-related severe hypomagnesemia was compared with three controls on long-term PPI without hypomagnesemia, to assess for risk factors of developing severe hypomagnesemia. Results: Amongst 53,149 patients with serum magnesium measurements, 360 patients had severe hypomagnesemia (<0.4 mmol/L). 189 of 360 (52.5%) patients had at least possible PPI-related hypomagnesemia (128 possible, 59 probable, two definite). 49 of 189 (24.7%) patients had no other etiology for hypomagnesemia. PPI was stopped in 43 (22.8%) patients. Seventy (37.0%) patients had no indication for long-term PPI use. Hypomagnesemia resolved in most patients after supplementation, but recurrence was higher in patients who continued PPI, 69.7% versus 35.7%, p = 0.009. On multivariate analysis, risk factors for hypomagnesemia were female gender (OR 1.73; 95% CI: 1.17-2.57), diabetes mellitus (OR, 4.62; 95% CI: 3.05-7.00), low BMI (OR, 0.90; 95% CI: 0.86-0.94), high-dose PPI (OR, 1.96; 95% CI: 1.29-2.98), renal impairment (OR, 3.85; 95% CI: 2.58-5.75), and diuretic use (OR, 1.68; 95% CI: 1.09-2.61). Conclusion: In patients with severe hypomagnesemia, clinicians should consider the possibility of PPI-related hypomagnesemia and re-examine the indication for continued PPI use, or consider a lower dose.

A single-centre experience of His bundle pacing without electrophysiological mapping system: implant success rate, safety, pacing characteristics and one-year follow up.

Introduction: Despite the challenges related to His bundle pacing (HBP), recent data suggest an improved success rate with experience. As a non-university, non-electrophysiology specialised centre in Singapore, we report our experiences in HBP using pacing system analyser alone. Methods: Data of 28 consecutive patients who underwent HBP from August 2018 to February 2019 was retrospectively obtained. The clinical and technical outcomes of these patients were compared between two timeframes of three months each. Patients were followed up for 12 months. Results: Immediate technical success was achieved in 21 (75.0%) patients (mean age 73.3 ± 10.7 years, 47.6% female). The mean left ventricular ejection fraction was 53.9% ± 12.1%. The indications for HBP were atrioventricular block (n = 13, 61.9%), sinus node dysfunction (n = 7, 33.3%) and upgrade from implantable cardioverter-defibrillator to His-cardiac resynchronisation therapy (n = 1, 4.8%). No significant difference was observed in baseline characteristics between Timeframe 1 and Timeframe 2. Improvements pertaining to mean fluoroscopy time were achieved between the two timeframes. There was one HBP-related complication of lead displacement during Timeframe 1. All patients with successful HBP achieved non-selective His bundle (NSHB) capture, whereas only eight patients had selective His bundle (SHB) capture. NSHB and SHB capture thresholds remained stable at the 12-month follow-up. Conclusion: Permanent HBP is feasible and safe, even without the use of an electrophysiology recording system. This was successfully achieved in 75% of patients, with no adverse clinical outcomes during the follow-up period.

Impact of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers on in-hospital mortality among patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: There are concerns that angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) may worsen the outcomes of patients with COVID-19. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to study the in-hospital mortality among COVID-19 patients who were on ACEIs/ARBs as compared to those not on ACEIs/ARBs. METHODS: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, clinicaltrials.gov and Google Scholar between 1 January 2020 and 30 May 2020 to identify all studies that evaluated the use of ACEIs/ARBs and reported the in-hospital mortality outcomes of COVID-19 patients. Nine non-randomised studies were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. The primary outcome studied was the in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients who were on ACEIs/ARBs compared with those not on ACEIs/ARBs. RESULTS: Of the 8,313 patients in the nine studies, 7,622 (91.7%) were from studies with all-comers, while 691 (8.3%) were from studies involving only patients with hypertension. 577 (14.6%) in-hospital deaths were observed out of a total of 3,949 patients with an outcome in the nine studies. Overall, no significant difference was observed in the in-hospital mortality between patients on ACEIs/ARBs and those not on ACEIs/ARBs (odds ratio [OR] 1.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.75-1.50; p = 0.73). Further sensitivity analysis in the hypertension group and the all-comers group showed similar results (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.58-1.32; p = 0.53 and OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.00-3.43; p = 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION: We observed that ACEIs/ARBs had no significant impact on the in-hospital mortality of COVID-19 patients and can be used safely in patients with indications.

PILL Series. The 'problematic' asthma patient.

Asthma is a reversible chronic inflammatory disorder of the airways that can be effectively controlled without causing any lifestyle limitation or burden on the quality of life of the majority of asthma patients. However, persistently uncontrolled asthma can be frustrating for both the patient and the managing physician. Patients who fail to respond to high-intensity asthma treatment fall into the category of 'problematic' asthma, which is further subdivided into 'difficult' asthma and 'severe refractory' asthma. Establishing the correct diagnosis of asthma and addressing comorbidities, compliance, inhaler technique and environmental triggers are essential when dealing with 'problematic' asthma patients. A systemic approach is also crucial in managing such patients. This is pertinent for general practitioners, as the majority of asthma patients are diagnosed and managed at the primary care level.